DINESH PRASHAD DANGWAL,DEHRADUN V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

MA 2/DDN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Prashad Dangwal, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application concerning the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's earlier decision on his income tax assessments for the year 2017-18. The Tribunal had previously confirmed an addition of Rs. 16,00,000 as income from gifts and overlooked another addition of Rs. 17,25,501 related to the sale of scrap. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erroneously treated the gift addition as not pressed, despite his objections, and failed to mention the scrap sale addition. The Department's representative contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on the merits of the case and that the Miscellaneous Application should be dismissed. However, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claims of oversight and restored the appeal to address the unadjudicated issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785427 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2024
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A. S. RANA
• Keywords: Gift; Assessment record

Judgement Text

"1 M.A No. 02/DDN/2024 Dinesh Prashad Dangwal, Vs. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ DEHRADUN’ BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A NO. 2/DDN/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) (in ITA No.75/DDN/2023) Dinesh PrashadDangwal, House No. 30, Lane No. 11, Ashirwad Enclave Near Ballupur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001 PAN-AKRPP4270G (APPELLANT) vs Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttarakhand (RESPONDENT)) Applicant by Sh. Kanwal K Juneja, Adv Respondent by Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The above mentioned Miscellaneous Application is filed in respect of the order dated 14/08/2024 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 75/DDN/2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Tribunal has not adjudicated the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- which being gift received from the son, brother and father of the Assessee and the Tribunal erroneously treated the said addition as not pressed, on the other hand, the Assessee has argued on the said addition, however, the Assessee has not pressed addition of Rs. 17,25,501/-made on account of sale of scrap. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Tribunal due to an error, Date of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 M.A No. 02/DDN/2024 Dinesh Prashad Dangwal, Vs. CIT not made any reference to the addition of Rs. 17,25,501/- and also dismissed the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-, therefore, the Ld. Assessee's Representative sought for restoring the Appeal for adjudicating addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- made on account of gift received. 3. Per contra, the ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities submitted that, there is some tampering of assessment records on certain additions, further submitted that as the order has been passed by the Tribunal on its merits which cannot be entertained in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Assessee, thus, sought for dismissal of the captioned application. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the record, the Assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 17,25,501/- made on account of sale of scrap and also challenged the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- claimed to be gift received from son, brother and father of the Assessee. The Tribunal in Paragraph 5, recorded the finding that the Assessee has not pressed the ‘amount received Rs. 16,00,000/-’, hence, confirmed the said addition. 5. It is the specific case of the Assessee that the said amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- received from son, brother and father as gift and the Assessee has not withdrawn the ground on the said addition, on the Printed from counselvise.com 3 M.A No. 02/DDN/2024 Dinesh Prashad Dangwal, Vs. CIT other hand, the Assessee has withdrawn ground on the addition of Rs. 17,25,501/- made on account of sale of scrap, however, the Tribunal has not even mentioned regarding the addition of Rs. 17,25,501/-. In order to support the said contention, the Assessee has filed the affidavit of the Assessee's Representative and also the affidavit of the Assessee himself. It is observed that, the Tribunal has not adjudicated the addition of Rs. 17,25,501/- and only mentioned regarding addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- and dismissed the same as not pressed. Considering the above facts and circumstances and also the affidavits of the Assessee and the Ld. Assessee's Representative, we are of the opinion that there is an error apparent from record in not deciding the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/-. Therefore, restore the Appeal for the limited purpose of adjudicating the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- claimed to have been amount received as gift by the Assessee from his son, brother and father. The registry is directed to restore the Appeal to its original number and post the Appeal before the Bench in due course. 6. In the result, the M.A filed by the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/10/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28/10/2025 R.N, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 4 M.A No. 02/DDN/2024 Dinesh Prashad Dangwal, Vs. CIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "